the public perception of science and technology in a periphery society: a critical analysis from a...
TRANSCRIPT
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 1/24
http://sts.sagepub.com/ Science Technology & Society
http://sts.sagepub.com/content/12/1/141
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0971721806012001072007 12: 141Science Technology Society
Leonardo Silvio VaccarezzaSociety: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Perspective
The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Science Technology & Society Additional services and information for
http://sts.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://sts.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://sts.sagepub.com/content/12/1/141.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- May 11, 2007Version of Record>>
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 2/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 141
Science, Technology & Society 12:1 (2007)
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LOS ANGELES/LONDON/NEW DELHI/SINGAPORE
DOI: 10.1177/097172180601200107
The Public Perception of Science and
Technology in a Periphery Society:
A Critical Analysis from a
Quantitative Perspective
LEONARDO SILVIO VACCAREZZA
In this article a series of variables referred to the general public’s valuations of science
and technology are analysed. These valuations refer to different dimensions of science and
technology—as a utility of scientific knowledge, their legitimacy, their bond with the cul-
tural matrix of everyday life. The analysis is based on information from a survey carried
out in a great urban conglomerate of a little scientific developing country, Argentina. We
see that valuation variables discriminate the public according to their positive or negative
responses about science, but that there is no evident association between them. We consider one variable in particular dividing the public into those who are ‘trustful’ and those who
are ‘cautious’ regarding the advances of science, and we see how it is related to other
significations of valuation. The pre-eminence of positions of ambivalence or contradiction
in the population’s perception regarding this topic is discussed. A factor analysis is
presented that comprises these variables and that presents a set of ‘valuation orientations’
towards science as a result. Finally, it is interesting to see how education and the level of
understanding of scientific knowledge affect the public’s valuation, which questions the
basic supposition of the tradition of public understanding studies.
THERE HAS BEEN a significant development in studies on the public percep-
tion of science and technology in advanced countries in the last fifteen
years, motivated by different interests: political, cognitive, educational,
professional and even commercial. This has given risen to a set of per-
spectives that, although contradictory in many aspects, are all concerned
Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza is Researcher, Instituto de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y
la Tecnología, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Argentina. E-mail: [email protected].
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 3/24
142 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
about the relation of non-experts with the expert knowledge produced in
the institutionalised framework of science and technology. Thus, those
who focus this question on scientific literacy as a function of scientificeducation in educational institutions deal with the question of what to
teach and with what objectives (Fourez 1997; Shamos 1995) within the
concept of ‘good citizen’ (Lee and Roth 2003). From another perspective,
the concept of public understanding of science (PUS) established by the
tradition of national surveys to measure the public’s level of understand-
ing of scientific knowledge, interest in scientific issues, and attitudes re-
ferred to science and technology goes about this question not only in
order to help overcome the increasing gap between science and the public
(Bensaude-Vincent 2001) for a higher participation of the individual in
the contemporary world, but also in order to strengthen the social legit-
imacy of science. The studies that criticise the PUS perspectives aim to
question the implicit superiority of science on technical decisions with
social consequences, and, specially, on the consideration of the techno-
logical risk. From a perspective directly influenced by the social stud-
ies on science, the objective is to analyse science just as common sense
knowledge is analysed, to articulate its construction with the local senses
in which science is produced, which is influenced by the cultural contentsof the society where science is constructed. The attention on the non-
experts’ knowledge based on experience and on the signification given
by them to expert knowledge in local processes of negotiation of technical
decisions opened a new promising grounds for studies on the relation
between the understanding of science and technology by lay people and
the social use of expert knowledge (Collins and Evans 2002; Irwing 2001;
Wynne 1995; Yearley 2000).
These lines of inquiry have been consolidated in empirical studies,
which in general have been carried out in developed contexts, that is local
or national environments in which science is produced. This means there
is a dense framework of relations of knowledge (Dagnino and Thomas
1999) among several types of social actors, and proximity between the
‘responsible’ experts and lay users, which implies, in the case of the lat-
ter, a clearer awareness that scientific and technological knowledge is
the product of their own society. It is not possible to discard that the so-
cial perception of science and technology within non-developed contexts
should be influenced by an effect of absence of local scientific and techno-logical production. In developed countries the relation between the core
set of technological decisions with public effect and the user public is
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 4/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 143
closer (as identification of the institutional sites where those decisions
are taken and as recognition of scientists and technicians involved), so
the relation between qualified experts and the experience of non-experts(Collins and Evans 2002) finds a more structured social space.
On the other hand it could be stated that the social perception of scien-
tific knowledge as a cultural product and of science as an institution of
modern society is a component of the globalised culture, spread through
internationalised mass media and through uniform technologies, not much
affected by hybridisation processes in local situations. Thus, the public
perception of science will not be presenting significant differences be-
tween central and periphery countries with intermediate development,
which are similarly subject to the use of international technology and to
the discourses involved in public controversies about the activities and
impacts of science and technology.
In spite of the different perspectives of analysis, it can be said that the
studies on the public perception of science and technology constitute a
field of not stable knowledge types, with important theoretical gaps and
inaccuracies, and with widely recognised methodological weaknesses.
Apart from the dispersion of topics and conceptual frameworks, we should
also mention the question of universal and local knowledge on this matter—in other words, the differences of this phenomenon between social con-
texts that are clearly divergent in terms of the centre–periphery dimension.
Thus, there is a new field of inquiry in which uncertainties are higher.
In this work we will not go along this line that requires a comparative
strategy. In turn, we will analyse some indicators of valuation made by
the public about science and technology in a context of their lower institu-
tionalisation, compared to the situation in central developed contexts.
By doing so, we think we may be contributing to broadening the scope
on this topic by making an analysis corresponding to a context that is notoften investigated by specialised research.
The analysis presented is based on information from a survey carried
out in the urban conglomerate of Greater Buenos Aires, which applies
some internationally used indicators.1 These quantitative studies have
been criticised for the lack of subtlety of the indicators to identify its
significations among respondents (Davison et al. 1997; Michael 2002;
Wynne 1995). It should be taken into account that the surveys carried
out by national or supranational entities of scientific policy have paid at-
tention to three types of PUS components: knowledge, attentiveness andattitudes (Miller et al. 1998). The definition of these general concepts,
as well as the sub-dimensions they consist of and the indicators formulated
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 5/24
144 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
to measure these concepts show important weaknesses. The indicators
of knowledge are, then, only a set of scientific affirmations that are certi-
fied and codified (some are currently controversial), and the understand-ing of the scientific method is a strictly Popperian version, which neither
guarantees the pretensions found in the idea of scientific literacy regarding
the communication of the ‘scientific mentality’ (Davis, quoted by Shamos
1995), nor the claim that lay people’s knowledge of science and tech-
nology can be considered for its utilisation (Fourez 1997). The idea of
attentiveness refers to the self-valuation of the surveyed agent, subject
to a simple scale of categories (very, moderate, not at all), whose signifi-
cations granted by the agent are unknown and, therefore, this makes it
impossible to compare these terms in the whole sample. Last, the attitudes
are used without a clear theoretical orientation of what that concept means.
They can be considered fixed devices in the subject’s dispositions that
are activated by a certain prompt (a question or exposition to a valuation
phrase) to generate a conduct (response, measured by the Lickert scale).
This poses two kinds of doubts: on the one hand, as in the case of the
concept of attentiveness, the pretended homogeneity in the meaning sub-
jects give to the prompts. On the other hand the validity or utility of such
device to characterise valuation concepts of the subject, which is con-structed in ever-changing scenes of interaction. In this regard, the attitudes
derived from the behavioural tradition may be interpreted as a component
of concepts like that of ‘social representation’ (Moscovici and Morková
1998), understood as a continuous construction in processes of interaction,
so that it is difficult to say that attitudes keep their subjective significations
unchanged.
For all that has been said, the quantitative approach is very rustic in the
analysis. Even so, it is legitimate to use it so long as the statistical outputs
are carefully interpreted, that is we try to avoid considering the agent’sresponses to valuation prompts as a fixed and constitutive attitude of the
subject. These responses are, instead, expressed in the fleeting scene of
interviews in a context of signification comprising different aspects: the
historical moment full of events that affect the meaning of responses,
and also the immediate context of the questionnaire and the different
prompts ordered to get the subjectivity of the respondents. This makes
results (the positive and negative responses in terms of appreciation of
science and technology) somewhat provisory, and this should be taken
into careful account when interpreting the data. On the other hand thesurveys on this topic are increasingly more present in the field of scientific
and technological policy, and this cannot be overlooked. All governments
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 6/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 145
have been incorporating them in their public agendas, thus following the
classic path of ‘institutional isomorphism’. As such, they are instruments
of power, which requires paying more attention to their use, not in orderto indicate inherent conceptual and methodological weaknesses, but
in order to explore the deviation and contradictions so as to generate
new interpretative frameworks of the public perception of science and
technology.
In this work we will analyse a series of variables referred to the re-
spondents’ valuations of science and technology. These valuations make
reference to different dimensions of judgement on science and technology,
for example, the utility of scientific knowledge, their legitimacy, their bond
with the cultural matrix of everyday life. We will see that these variables
divide the public according to their positive or negative responses about
science, but that there is not an evident association between them. We
will consider one variable in particular, classifying the public between
those who are ‘trustful’ and those who are ‘cautious’ regarding the ad-
vance of sciences, and we will see how it is related to other significations
of valuation. We will discuss if this indicates the pre-eminence of positions
of ambivalence or contradiction, and we will try to formulate some hypoth-
eses to this respect. Then we will present a factor analysis that comprisesthese variables and that presents a set of ‘valuation orientations’ towards
science as a result, and we will discuss the interpretative value of this tool
in the context of the analysis. Third, we are interested in showing how
educational level and the level of understanding of scientific knowledge
affect the public’s valuation, which will question the basic supposition
of the tradition of PUS studies.
Trustful and Cautious
One question from the questionnaire formulated as ‘Many people think
that science development brings about problems to humanity. Do you think
this is true?’ shows us two different categories depending on whether the
answer is in the affirmative or negative. The first ones are referred to as
‘cautious’ towards science, and those who are not afraid of its develop-
ment as ‘trustful’. The sample was divided almost in halves between both
options: 141 cases for the first and 145 for the second. Respondents hadto justify their answer. The question was made after a set of Lickert scale
prompts about valuations of science and technology that could be both
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 7/24
146 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
positive and negative, and after a set of statements on scientific knowledge
that the respondent must consider as true or false. Once the question
is taken into account along with the previous questions, it cannot be saidthat they have systematically conditioned the understanding of the
prompts or the response. Of course, we did not have any argument to en-
sure a homogeneous meaning in the surveyed population;2 however, from
a syntactic and semantic point of view, the question was made in a col-
loquial way and did not seem to lead to ‘mistakes’ or to an interpretation
bias. It may be argued that the fact of presenting the topic as an affirmative
statement held by ‘many people’ might have led to affirmative responses
to the question. But the colloquial nature of the expression only stresses
the importance of the affirmation rather than suggesting a net preference
of the public.
The dichotomous response to the question does not bear any statistical
association with the valuations of science (or of science and technology)
that are expressed through other prompts. In fact, the questionnaire in-
cluded a set of affirmations of the agreement–disagreement type that
made reference to different aspects: the utility of science or scientific re-
search, the legitimacy of scientific knowledge as a cultural basis of so-
ciety, the integration or strangeness of science regarding ordinary people’severyday life, scientific knowledge as a source of risks to life, the valu-
ation of scientific activity and of scientists as professionals. Some of these
indicators were worded as positive statements towards science and others
as affirmations with a negative meaning. Some of them gave responses
that were focused on either of the values (agreement or disagreement)
and others made a more equal discrimination. In Table 1 it is possible to
see valuation indicators, showing the percentage of responses that are
‘favourable’ to science and technology (whether as an agreement or dis-
agreement response depending on the meaning with which the statement
was made) for the total sample and for the group of ‘cautious’ and ‘trustful’.
Science and technology are highly appreciated since for 74.7 per cent
of the sample it is the main cause for improvement in quality of life; it is
expected to cure diseases like AIDS or cancer (92.7 per cent); its benefits
are more than the prejudices it can arouse (72 per cent); science is the
best resource of accurate knowledge about the world (67.8 per cent); and
it prevents us from becoming an irrational society (60.7 per cent). What’s
more, 58.3 per cent of the respondents think that science promises solu-tions but fails to fulfill the same. However, this positive valuation of sci-
ence is not universal: for example, only a minority of 42.6 per cent think
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 8/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 147
TABLE 1
Percentage of Opinions Favourable to Science and Technology
Gamma
Prompts Cautious Trustful Total coefficient
The main cause of the improvement in
human life quality is the advance of
science and technology 68.8 80.6 74.7 0.260
The progress of ST will help cure diseases
like AIDS, cancer, etc. 91.3 94.2 92.7 –0.115
The application of ST will increase
work opportunities 31.9 54.7 42.6 0.391
Science and technology can solve all problems 11.8 16.0 13.4 0.234
Science seems to promise the solution to all
evils, but in the end these promises
remain unfulfilled* 50.0 68.4 58.3 –0.322
The benefits of science are more than
the prejudices 63.8 79.9 72.0 0.219
Science is the best accurate knowledge
resource about the world 63.8 71.9 67.8 0.166
If we neglect science, our society will be
increasingly more irrational 57.5 65.8 60.7 0.040
The world of science cannot be understood
by ordinary people* 34.1 44.6 39.1 –0.210Over time science will make it possible to
understand all that happens 36.3 48.7 41.7 0.221
If scientists were in charge of government
policy, things would be better 35.5 36.0 36.0 –0.054
We attribute too much truth to science and
little truth to religious faith* 39.1 44.6 41.9 –0.135
Science and technology do not care for the
problems of the people* 61.6 67.6 64.4 –0.130
Science changes our way of life very quickly* 29.1 40.0 33.7 –0.271
There are too many issues related to ST on
which not even scientists themselves can
agree, and it is difficult to know if they are
good or bad for humanity* 14.9 31.0 23.0 –0.395
ST are out of control and there is nothing
we can do to stop that* 63.2 75.3 68.3 –0.291
Note: *Indication of the percentage of ‘disagreement’ with the statement.
the application of science and technology will increase work oppor-
tunities, while only 41.7 per cent think that over time science will enable
us to understand all that happens. At the same time just 13.4 per centdare to support the idea that science and technology can solve all prob-
lems. Most people also reject the idea of scientists charge of government
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 9/24
148 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
(only a third consider it convenient). Thus, the enthusiasm for science
and technology finds its limitations in the achievement of sciences, but
also in other negative valuations: 57.3 per cent of the respondents think we attribute too much truth to science and little to religious faith; 57.9 per
cent think science changes our way of life very quickly; for 60.5 per cent
it cannot be understood by ordinary people; and 66.2 per cent feel that
there are too many issues related to ST on which not even scientists
themselves can agree, and it is difficult to know if they are good or bad
for humanity.
Thus, it can be said that most people surveyed have expectations and
a favourable valuation of science and technology, that the valuation does
not lead them to have exaggerated expectations—or, in other words, that
they recognise there are limits to the benefits deriving from science and
technology—and that, although they do not think they advance without
any control, they do so without considering other sources of knowledge
like, for example, religious or the concern for keeping traditional values
intact. In this regard, ordinary people tend to see science as a strange
force, which is beneficial yet incomprehensible and at times turbulent.
As it can be seen from Table 1, the values are relatively independent
from whether respondents feel either precaution or trust. Although in allcases the positive valuation of science is higher among the trustful ones
than among the cautious, the percentage differences between them and
the association coefficients show there is proximity in their attitudes. For
example, in spite of having the opinion that science brings about problems
to humanity, 68.8 per cent of the cautious respondents consider it the
main cause of the improvement in quality of life, nine of ten hope it can
cure current serious diseases, almost 64 per cent think science is the best
resource of knowledge and that its benefits are more than prejudices,
for 57.5 per cent science is a guarantee against an irrational society, and
63.2 per cent consider its development does not represent any danger of
its becoming uncontrollable. In these cases the percentage difference
with trustful respondents does not exceed 16 per cent. And even among
these, despite their more positive orientation towards science, many of
them have a critical point of view: more than 80 per cent of the trustful
ones do not believe it can solve all the problems of humanity; less than
half expect that science will allow them to know all that happens in the
world; 55 per cent seem to regret that science is so highly appreciatedto the detriment of religious faith; 58 per cent are afraid that science and
technology may change our way of life very quickly; 62 per cent think
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 10/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 149
the uncertainty about the advances of science and technology is due to
scientists’ unresolved controversies; and, moreover, scientists are not con-
sidered to be the governmental ideal (56 per cent). In general, the coeffi-cients of association show that there is independence between the trustful
or cautious orientation and the indicators of valuation. In the case of higher
coefficients, both groups concentrate their cases on the same positive or
negative value of the indicator.
The highest coefficient of association can be seen between the preven-
tion trust attribute and the perception that scientific controversies give
rise to uncertainties regarding the consequences of the development of
science and technology (gamma = 0.395). This indicator brings up a core
affirmation of the concept of ‘risk society’ developed by Beck (1992),
according to which a reflexive society faces the uncertainty caused, espe-
cially in the scope of environment, by the application of scientific and
technological results, undermining the trust in science. The fact that the
coefficient of association is low (even if it is the highest in the series) in-
dicates that the public’s concern for the lack of consensus in science is a
significant dimension of ‘reflexive modernity’.3 In fact, the cautious seem
uncertain about the advance of science of scientific controversies (only
14.9 per cent refute the statement about the lack of agreement betweenscientists as a source of uncertainty on the benefit of science for human-
ity). Nevertheless, among the trustful also a low proportion refute the same
statement (31 per cent), that is, those who do not tend to think that science
can cause problems to humanity. Even among those who trust science,
most perceive a shadow of insecurity cast by the advance of knowledge.
As we have seen, for 70.5 per cent of the total sample ‘the world of
science cannot be understood by ordinary people’. The difficulty for lay
people to understand scientific content does not help configure the image
that science neglects the problems of people. In fact, 61 per cent of those
who consider that science is an entity cognitively isolated from everyday
life reject the affirmation that science does not care for the problems of
people (the percentage for the total sample is 64.4 per cent). This leads
us to an important concept: the distinction between esoterism and respon-
sibility, which suggests that, as an ‘expert system’ (Giddens 1990), far
from the experience of real life, it nonetheless fulfils a responsible func-
tion in society. The distinction between lay people’s alienation of under-
standing and the responsible function of science becomes evident whenrelated to another indicator of valuation: those who believe that people
who cannot understand science mostly think (64 per cent) that if science
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 11/24
150 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
were neglected, we would succumb to irrationality. In this sense, not
only does science care, according to the perception of the public, for the
problems of people, but it also constitutes the cultural matrix essential tomaintaining a rational lifestyle of modernity.
Evaluative Ambivalence or Complexity of Science and Technology
Just as we can see that the two orientations of precaution and trust towards
science are not associated with the values that could be considered equiva-
lent to other indicators of valuation, there are no significant associations
among these. As we can see in the matrix in Table 2, the gamma coefficient
of association only gets above 0.4 in a few relations. But even the highest
of them—between the opinion that the benefits of science are higher
than the prejudices, and that science is the best resource of true knowledge
(0.503)—we find a high number of respondents that contradict this asso-
ciation: almost 50 per cent of those who think that science does not ensure
more benefits than prejudices believe that even so it is the best resource
of knowledge, and almost 60 per cent of those who do not agree with
this preference of science maintain that its benefits are higher than theeffects arising from prejudice. This distribution model with high percent-
ages of deviations from the main diagonal of the expected association
among indicators of valuation can be seen in all the variable crosses, in-
dicating a strong ambivalence as to the meaning of science and technology
for the public.
There can be different explanations for the public’s valuation ambiva-
lence4 on science. According to a first hypothesis, the different indicators
could reflect different prevailing values in society. Since values do not
set perfectly compatible borders among them, but rather ambiguous sig-
nifications in their applications, social agents tend to have preferences
that are mutually incompatible. For instance, Luján and Todt (2000) have
found responses in which ethical values overlap with utility values regard-
ing applications in biotechnology.
The second hypothesis does not stress the ambiguity of valuations by
the agent, but the complexity of the object of value. According to this,
the discourse on science and technology would refer to a complex and
extended object in such a way that each of the indicators built covers asegment of the object’s signification. Considering that science ‘brings
about problems to humanity’ does not take its ‘negativity’ to science by
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 12/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 151
T A B L
E 2
M
a t r i x o f C o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n V a l u a t i o n I n d i c a t o r s ( g a m m a )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1
1 0
. 4 8
0 . 3
8
0 . 0
8 9
– 0 . 1 0 3
0 . 4
1
0 . 4
3
0 . 3
8 3
0 . 3
2
0 . 3
6 3
0 . 2
4
– 0 . 0 2
– 0 . 0
7
– 0 . 0
9 5 – 0 . 0
7 7 – 0 . 1
4 9
1
2
1
0 . 1
2
– 0 . 1
3
– 0 . 2 0 8
0 . 4
2
0 . 4
4
0 . 3
1 7
0 . 1
2
0 . 1
8 5
0 . 1
6
0 . 1 6
– 0 . 2
2
0 . 1
2 4
0 . 0
6 6 – 0 . 1
6 4
2
3
1
0 . 2
6 7
0 . 0 1 4
0 . 2
5
0 . 1
5
0 . 2
0 2
0 . 0
2
0 . 2
8 9
0 . 2
5
– 0 . 0 4
0 . 0
1
0 . 1
3 5 – 0 . 1 1
6 – 0 . 3
3 1
3
4
1
0 . 0 3 4
0 . 1
4
0 . 2
0 8
0 . 1
4 9 –
0 . 2
5 6
0 . 4
5
0 . 3
1 1
0 . 1 4
9
0 . 0
2
0 . 2
4 1 – 0 . 2
0 7 0 . 3
2
4
5
1
– 0 . 2
7 1
– 0 . 1
7 2
– 0 . 0
7 9
0 . 3
7 5
0 . 1
3 6
0 . 1
5 6
– 0 . 1
0 . 3
0 5
0 . 2
7 8
0 . 3
1 2 0 . 4
4 8
5
6
1
0 . 5
0 3
0 . 3
9 1
0 . 2
7
0 . 2
7 8
0 . 3
1
0 . 1 3
0
0 . 0
4 6
0 . 1
3 5 – 0 . 1 4 2
6
7
1
0 . 4
6 9
0 . 1
7
0 . 3
0 5
0 . 2
6
– 0 . 0 2
– 0 . 1
5
0 . 0
2 1
0 . 0
7 – 0 . 0 6 4
7
8
1
0 . 1
5 9
0 . 3
1 6
0 . 2
2 1
– 0 . 0 5
8
0 . 0
1 2
– 0 . 0
9 6
0 . 0
5 – 0 . 0
0 3
8
9
1
0 . 1
6 9
0 . 1
3
0 . 1 5
0 . 1
3
0 . 1
3 2
0 . 1
0 1 0 . 1
9 5
9
1 0
1
0 . 0
7 2
– 0 . 0 6
5
0 . 0
2 2
0 . 0
4 7
0 . 1
0 7 0 . 0
4 5
1 0
1 1
1
0 . 0 4
0 . 1 1
– 0 . 0
0 9
0 . 0
5 3 0 . 0
1 7
1 1
1 2
1
0 . 1 1
0 . 1
3 6
0 . 1
0 2 0 . 1
4 5
1 2
1 3
1
0 . 1
7
0 . 1
6 6 0 . 2
2 6
1 3
1 4
1
0 . 2
3 9 0 . 2
9 2
1 4
1 5
1
0 . 0
5 9
1 5
1 6
1
1 6
N o t e s : 1 . T
h e m a i n c a u s e o f t h e i m p r o v e m e n t i n l i f e q u a l i t y i s t h e a d v a n c e
o f s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y . 2 . T
h e p r o g r e s s o f S T w i l l h e l p c u r e
d i s e a s e s
l i k e
A I D S , c a n c e r , e t c . 3 . T h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f S T w i l l i n c r e a s e w o r k o p p o r t u n i t i e s . 4 . S c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y c a n s o l v e a l l p r o b l e m s . 5 .
S c i e n c e
s e e m s t o p r o m i s e t h e s o l u t i o n t o a l l e v i l s , b u t i n t h e e n d t h e s e p r o m i s e s r e m a i n u n f u l f i l l e d .
6 . T h
e b e n e f i t s o f s c i e n c e a r e m o r e
t h a n t h e
p r e j u d i c e s . 7 . S c i e n c e i s t h e b e s t a c c
u r a t e k n o w l e d g e r e s o u r c e a b o u t
t h e w o r l d . 8 . I f w e n e g l e c t s c i e n
c e , o u r s o c i e t y w i l l b e i n c r e a s i n g
l y m o r e
i r r a t i o n a l . 9 . T
h e w o r l d o f s c i e n c e c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d b y o r d i n a r y
p e o p l e . 1 0 . O v e r t i m e s c i e n c e w
i l l m a k e i t p o s s i b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d a l l t h a t
h a p p e n s . 1 1 . I f s c i e n t i s t s w e r e i n c h a r g e o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t p o l i c y , t h
i n g s w o u l d b e b e t t e r . 1 2 . W e a t t r i b u t e t o o m u c h t r u t h t o s c i e n c e a n d l i t t l e
t r u t h t o r e l i g i o u s f a i t h .
1 3 .
S c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y d o n o t c a r e f o r t h e p r o b l e m s o f p e o p l e . 1 4 .
S c i e n
c e c h a n g e s o u r w a y o f l i f e v e r y
q u i c k l y .
1 5 .
T h e r e a r e t o o m a n y i s s u e s r e l a t e
d t o S T o n w h i c h n o t e v e n s c i e n
t i s t s t h e m s e l v e s c a n a g r e e , a n d i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o k n o w i f t h e y a r e
g o o d o r
b a d
f o r h u m a n i t y . 1 6 .
S T a r e o u t o f
c o n t r o l a n d t h e r e i s n o t h i n g w e
c a n d o t o s t o p t h a t .
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 13/24
152 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
inducing the opinion that it is not ‘the main means of knowledge’. This
means that the public thinks of science as a polyhedron that may give
rise to different attitudes in the same person.Third, we could support the idea that the question of science and
technology—mainly the first—is not a topic of exchange and social sig-
nification in everyday life. Thus, the public should not be expected to
build stable and integrated significations about it on a common or so-
cialised background of knowledge (Alfred Schütz), so that coherent and
mutually exclusive ideological schemes referred to this issue could be
integrated.
Last, should we accept the concept of ‘reflexive modernity’, then the
relationship of the public with science and technology is full of ambiguity.
On the one hand science has gained ground as the base for technological
solutions to society’s problems and its significations have gradually moved
further away from common sense (Bensaude-Vincent 2001), making ex-
pert systems act as legitimate mediators of the gap between social experi-
ence of the problem and solution (output), reducing the agent’s autonomy
when faced with the impositions of techno-science (Giddens 1990). On
the other hand the reflexivity of society regarding science and technology
is presented as the perception of consequences that are undesired andunforeseen by these (Beck 1999), which questions the trust and legitimacy
in these institutions. In the same sense, the ambiguity of attitudes towards
science and technology can be interpreted as a consequence of techno-
science phenomenon. Ziman (2000; 2003) says that the public sees a
base of trust in non-instrumental science (academic science), but techno-
science (science colonised by technology and utility) corrupts the cul-
tural sense of science, and its relation with society and the public (the
civil society). It could be said that the public’s ambiguity derives from
its perception of the tension between non-instrumental academic scienceand techno-science.
The four hypotheses presented about the ambiguity in the public’s re-
sponses to the indicators of valuation of science and technology5 are not
incompatible with one another. In particular, the fourth hypothesis stresses
the distance of scientific knowledge from common sense and everyday
life, as does the third hypothesis, but the difference is that the latter makes
more emphasis on the attitude of fear and the perception of technological
risk. It can also be stated that the process of late modernisation of reflexive
modernity has an influence on the valuation integration of society andmakes the agents’ preferences more scattered. At the same time the grow-
ing complexity of science and technology—as a body of knowledge,
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 14/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 153
institutions, practices and professional types involved—gives rise to more
aspects or dimensions of science and technology for the valuation scrutiny
of lay people. However, we will not go deeper into the empirical analysisof these hypotheses as long as the source of information available does
not make it possible, these being left as plausible explanations for further
studies.
Factor Analysis
For a set of eighteen indicators of valuation of science and technology6 a
varimax factor analysis was carried out, the maximum adjustment result-
ing in four factors (Table 3). A first factor, which we called ‘adherence
to science and technology’ encompasses a series of strongly affirmative
indicators of the value of science, specially in terms of the utility of know-
ledge (‘the benefits of science are more than the prejudices’, ‘the main
cause of the improvement in life quality is the advance of science and
technology’, ‘the progress of science and technology will help cure dis-
eases like AIDS and cancer’, and ‘the application of ST will increase
work opportunities’), and of science as an essential component of culture(‘science is the best resource of accurate knowledge’, and ‘if we neglect
science, our society will be increasingly more irrational’). The perception
that science cannot be understood by lay people is added to this factor
with a relatively low value.
Both in relation to the question of utility and to the validity of scientific
knowledge as a basis of culture, this affirmation is not incompatible with
the hypothesis that was discussed regarding the growing gap within the
public between science and its valuation as reliable expert knowledge.
A second factor—which we called ‘criticism to science and technology’—
shows indicators of negative valuation or which play down the value
of science. First, an expression of insecurity in knowledge due to the
lack of agreement among scientists, and the perception that science often
fails to fulfil the expectations people have of it. There is also the con-
viction that science brings about problems to humanity, and that science
and technology do not address the problems of people, although this in-
dicator shows a lower coefficient. In general, the factor represents an
attitude that questions scientific and technological activity, not becauseof their own value, but because of the failure to fulfil promises and an
adequate orientation to meet the problems of humanity.
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 15/24
154 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
T A B L
E 3
F a c t o r A
n a l y s i s B a s e d o n V a r i a b l e s o f V a l u a t i o n o f S c i e n c e a n d T e c h n o l o g y
I n d i c a t o r s o f v a l u a t i o n o f s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y
1
2
3
4
T h e b e n e f i t s o f s c i e n c e a r e m o r e t h a n t h e p
r e j u d i c e s
0 . 7 2 0
T h e m a i n c
a u s e i n t h e i m p r o v e m e n t o f l i f e
q u a l i t y i s t h e a d v a n c e o f S T
0 . 6 9 9
S c i e n c e i s t h e b e s t r e s o u r c e o f a c c u r a t e k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e w o r l d
0 . 6 8 3
I f w e n e g l e
c t s c i e n c e , o u r s o c i e t y w i l l b e c o
m e i n c r e a s i n g l y m o r e i r r a t i o n a l
0 . 5 8 9
T h e p r o g r e
s s o f S T w i l l h e l p c u r e d i s e a s e s
l i k e A I D S , c a n c e r , e t c .
0 . 5 7 3
T h e w o r l d
o f s c i e n c e c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d
b y o r d i n a r y p e o p l e
0 . 5 0 4
0 . 3
8 0
T h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f S T w i l l i n c r e a s e w o r k o
p p o r t u n i t i e s
0 . 4 6 1
– 0 . 3 0
7
T h e r e a r e t o o m a n y S T i s s u e s o n w h i c h n o t e v e n s c i e n t i s t s c a n a g r e e , a n d i
t i s d i f f i c u l t t o k n o w
i f t h e y a r e g o o d o r b a d f o r h u m a n i t y
0 . 7
1 0
S c i e n c e p r o m i s e s t h e s o l u t i o n t o a l l e v i l s , b
u t i n t h e e n d t h e s e p r o m i s e s r e m
a i n u n f u l f i l l e d
0 . 6
9 5
T h e d e v e l o
p m e n t o f s c i e n c e b r i n g s a b o u t p
r o b l e m s t o h u m a n i t y
0 . 5
1 5
S c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y d o n o t c a r e f o r t h e
p r o b l e m s o f p e o p l e
0 . 4 7
7
S c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y c a n s o l v e a l l p r o b l e m s
0 . 7
2 6
S c i e n t i f i c k
n o w l e d g e i m p r o v e s p e o p l e ’ s a b
i l i t y t o d e c i d e i m p o r t a n t t h i n g s
0 . 7
0 3
I f t h e g o v e r n m e n t p o l i c y w e r e i n c h a r g e o f
s c i e n t i s t s , t h i n g s w o u l d b e b e t t e r
0 . 5 9
7
O v e r t i m e ,
s c i e n c e w i l l m a k e i t p o s s i b l e t o
u n d e r s t a n d a l l t h a t h a p p e n s
0 . 4 3 1
0 . 5 2
6
0 . 3 6
4
W e a t t r i b u t e t o o m u c h t r u t h t o s c i e n c e a n d
l i t t l e t r u t h t o r e l i g i o u s f a i t h
0 . 6
7 4
S c i e n c e c h a n g e s o u r w a y o f l i f e v e r y q u i c k
l y
0 . 6
1 0
S T a r e o u t
o f c o n t r o l a n d t h e r e i s n o t h i n g w
e c a n d o t o s t o p t h a t
0 . 5
8 9
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 16/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 155
The third factor—‘naïve optimism’—is shown by a set of valuations
towards science that seem exaggerated, and this is expressed in different
aspects. First, it is expressed through the efficacy of science to solveall problems or to understand all that happens around the world. Second,
by its value as a means or instrument for the individual to manage life.
Third, by means of the trust in scientific knowledge to be used as govern-
ment of the state. The factor indicators consist of taking the expectations
people have of science and technology to an extreme. Unlike the first
factor, which evaluates both in comparative terms (‘it is the best resource
of knowledge’, ‘it has more benefits than prejudices’, ‘it is the main cause
of life quality’), the third factor evaluates them in absolute terms (‘it
will solve all the problems’, ‘it will understand all that happens’) and
establishes a direct relation between science and agency (‘it will enable
me to take the important decisions’, ‘it ensures a good government’).
The last factor—‘conservative opposition’—outlines a negative orien-
tation mainly based on the rejection of science and technology, and on
the fear of its consequences (‘it changes our way of life too quickly’, or ‘it
is out of control’). This negativity is supported from a system of different
knowledge: religious faith. Unlike the second factor, in which the nega-
tivity was based on the inefficacy or disorientation of science to fulfil itsprogress function, in this case science is rejected because it goes against
established life.
The coefficients of the components in each factor that conceptually
define it are high and significantly low in the other factors; consequently,
the correlation among factors is low or non-existent. This enables us to
underpin the plausibility of the interpretative concepts that were elab-
orated. We can see that, in general, in the correlation matrix presented
earlier, the components associated with each factor have relatively high
association coefficients among them (although they are always lower
than gamma = 0.500). However, the covariance is not high enough to
discard the existence of several cases deviating from its direction, which
makes it impossible to configure the sample according to the four factors
detected and to define social groups adjusted to the four orientations de-
scribed. From a theoretical interpretation of the factor analysis, it could
be stated that it enables to make a description of culture but not of society.
In fact, it enables us to describe the valuation orientations or the signifi-
cations allocated to science and technology by the public, but it does notallow us to group the members of the sample into differentiated parties.
Instead, we can conclude by interpreting that the four orientations are
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 17/24
156 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
present to variable degrees in the set of individuals the surveyed public
consists of. Once again, this reinforces the idea of the ambiguity previ-
ously discussed.
Valuation and Educational Level
The affirmation of educational level affecting the ability to understand
scientific and technological knowledge, which in turn affects the positive
valuation of science, has been established as an axiom of studies on pub-
lic understanding of science based on general surveys. The first part of
the affirmation is stressed by the values shown in Table 4, according towhich the highest understanding of scientific knowledge is 10.5 per cent
at the primary education level up to 75.6 per cent at the complete univer-
sity level. Regarding the second part—the relation between the under-
standing of scientific knowledge and the different valuation indicators
of science and technology—however, the data do not appear to be in ac-
cordance with it. This is clearly shown in the table.
TABLE 4
Level of Understanding of Scientific KnowledgeAccording to Educational Level (%)
Index of Educational level
understanding P IS CS IT CT IU CU
0 to 3 47.4 17.3 11.3 5.3 7.7 6.4 2.4
4 to 6 42.1 63.5 64.5 47.4 53.8 38.5 22.0
7 to 8 10.5 19.2 24.2 47.4 38.5 55.1 75.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 100.0 100.0 100.0
Notes: P: complete primary school; IS and CS: incomplete and complete secondary educa-
tion; IT and CT: incomplete and complete tertiary education; IU and CU: incompleteand complete university education.
Although the association coefficients between the levels of understand-
ing and the evaluation indicators are low, some of them describe sys-
tematic variations depending on understanding. For example, the opinion
that science is incomprehensible for ordinary people decreases, as is
expected, as the level of knowledge increases. Although the majority of
the people that are most informed about science think that science and
technology are the main cause of the improvement in humanity’s lifequality, this affirmation is less frequent among them than among the less
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 18/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 157
qualified agents. The perception that the benefits of science are more
than the prejudices also decreases as knowledge increases, or that sci-
ence is the best resource of accurate knowledge, as well as the maybenaïve valuation that over time science will enable us to understand every-
thing, or that scientific knowledge enhances our ability to take important
decisions. A more negative datum is presented by the favourable expectation
of a government managed by scientists, which goes from 63.6 per cent
among the less qualified to 27.6 per cent among the most informed re-
spondents. Among those that have more scientific information, the per-
ception that ‘the development of science brings about problems to humanity’
is higher (only 27.8 per cent do not agree with this). This group of indi-
cators reveals a more relative attitude towards science and technology
among the most informed share of the population, and the same trends
can be observed should the independent variable be educational level
(see Table 5).
On the one hand these data question the axiomatic affirmation that
links knowledge of science to valuation. On the contrary, the most in-
formed public seems to question the intrinsic goodness of scientific and
technological advance. This can be clearly seen in the indicators con-
tributing to the factor we called naïve optimism (the government managedby scientists, the virtue of science to understand it all, or that science im-
proves our ability to take important everyday decisions).
However, on the other hand, the higher the level of understanding of
scientific knowledge, the higher the acceptance of scientific activity as an
effort made by society: for example, the higher the level, the higher the
recognition that science cares for the problems of people; the lower the
acceptance of the opinion that science and technology offer false pro-
mises, the higher the rejection that science is out of control. In this sense
the level of understanding of the cognitive content of science and tech-
nology (and educational level) reinforces the support to science from a
critical point of view and discredits the exaggerated adherence to a naïve
optimism.
The indicator ‘development of science brings about problems to hu-
manity’ enabled us in a previous section to distinguish two groups: those
that are trustful and those that are cautious of science and technology.
We observed that the level of understanding of scientific knowledge has
a negative influence on the share of trustful respondents. As regards edu-cational level, relation is not so clear (Table 6).
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 19/24
158 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
T A B L
E 5
P o s i t i v e R e s p o n s e s t o I n d i c a t o r s o f V a l u a t i o n o f S T A c c o r d i n
g t o L e v e l s o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f S c i e n t i f i c K n o w l e d g e ( % )
U n d e r s t a n d i n g l e v e l s c o r e
I n d i c a t o r s o f v a l u a t i o n o f S T
1 a n d 2
3 a n d 4
5 a n d 6
7 a n d 8
T o t a l
G a m m a
T h e w o r l d
o f s c i e n c e c a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d
b y o r d i n a r y p e o p l e
8 1 . 8
6 3 . 6
6 1 . 0
5 0 . 0
6 1 . 5
– 0 . 2
6 4
T h e m a i n c
a u s e o f t h e i m p r o v e m e n t o f l i f e
q u a l i t y i s t h e a d v a n c e o f
s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y
9 0 . 9
8 1 . 8
7 3 . 2
6 8 . 2
7 6 . 0
– 0 . 2
9 8
T h e b e n e f i t s o f s c i e n c e a r e m o r e t h a n t h e p
r e j u d i c e s
6 3 . 6
7 2 . 7
7 8 . 0
5 4 . 5
6 9 . 8
– 0 . 1
3 3
S c i e n c e i s t h e b e s t r e s o u r c e o f a c c u r a t e k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e w o r l d
8 1 . 8
7 2 . 7
6 8 . 3
6 8 . 2
7 0 . 8
– 0 . 1
3 6
I f g o v e r n m
e n t p o l i c y w e r e i n c h a r g e o f s c i e n t i s t s , t h i n g s w o u l d b e b e t t e r
6 3 . 6
6 3 . 6
2 2 . 0
2 7 . 3
3 7 . 5
– 0 . 4 7 7
S c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y d o n o t c a r e f o r t h e
p r o b l e m s o f p e o p l e
3 6 . 4
6 3 . 6
7 5 . 6
8 1 . 8
6 9 . 8
0 . 4 2 6
T h e r e a r e i s s u e s o n w h i c h s c i e n t i s t s d o n o t
a g r e e , a n d i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o k n o w
i f t h e y a r e g o o d o r b a d f o r h u m a n i t y
0 . 0
2 2 . 7
3 4 . 1
4 0 . 9
2 9 . 2
0 . 4 2 3
S c i e n c e p r o m i s e s t h e s o l u t i o n t o a l l e v i l s , b
u t i n t h e e n d t h e s e p r o m i s e s
r e m a i n u
n f u l f i l l e d
3 6 . 4
5 4 . 5
7 3 . 2
8 1 . 8
6 6 . 7
0 . 4
6 6
O v e r t i m e s c i e n c e w i l l m a k e i t p o s s i b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d a l l t h a t h a p p e n s
7 2 . 7
5 0 . 0
4 6 . 3
2 7 . 3
4 5 . 8
– 0 . 3
6 8
W e a t t r i b u t e t o o m u c h t r u t h t o s c i e n c e a n d
l i t t l e t r u t h t o r e l i g i o u s f a i t h
4 5 . 5
4 0 . 9
4 8 . 8
4 5 . 5
4 5 . 8
0 . 0
4 2
T h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f S T w i l l i n c r e a s e w o r k o
p p o r t u n i t i e s
2 7 . 3
5 4 . 5
5 6 . 1
4 0 . 9
4 9 . 0
0 . 0
2 5
T h e p r o g r e
s s o f S T w i l l h e l p c u r e d i s e a s e s
l i k e A I D S , c a n c e r , e t c .
1 0 0 . 0
9 5 . 5
8 7 . 8
9 5 . 5
9 2 . 7
– 0 . 1 9
2
S c i e n c e c h a n g e s o u r w a y o f l i f e t o o q u i c k l y
2 7 . 3
1 3 . 6
5 1 . 2
4 5 . 5
3 8 . 5
0 . 3
5 9
I f w e n e g l e
c t s c i e n c e , o u r s o c i e t y w i l l b e c o
m e i n c r e a s i n g l y m o r e i r r a t i o n a l
6 3 . 6
6 8 . 2
6 5 . 9
5 4 . 5
6 3 . 5
– 0 . 1 2 6
S T a r e o u t
o f c o n t r o l a n d t h e r e i s n o t h i n g w
e c a n d o t o s t o p t h e m
2 7 . 3
7 2 . 7
7 5 . 6
8 6 . 4
7 1 . 9
0 . 4 8 0
S c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y c a n s o l v e a l l p r o b l e m s
1 8 . 2
9 . 1
1 2 . 2
1 3 . 6
1 2 . 5
– 0 . 0
0 4
T h e d e v e l o
p m e n t o f s c i e n c e b r i n g s a b o u t p
r o b l e m s t o h u m a n i t y
( p e r c e n t a g e o f t r u s t f u l o n e s )
4 7 . 8
5 1 . 1
4 4 . 4
2 7 . 8
4 2 . 0
– 0 . 5
8 4
S c i e n t i f i c k
n o w l e d g e i m p r o v e s p e o p l e ’ s a b
i l i t y t o d e c i d e i m p o r t a n t t h i n g s
5 4 . 5
3 1 . 8
1 9 . 5
2 2 . 7
2 7 . 1
– 0 . 1
9 7
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 20/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 159
TABLE 6
Distribution of Trustful and Cautious Respondents Regarding
Science and Technology According to Educational Level (%)
Educational level (grouped)
I II III Total
Trustful 42.3 58.0 46.9 48.8
Cautious 57.7 42.0 53.1 51.2
Notes: I. complete primary and incomplete secondary education; II. complete secondary
and incomplete tertiary education; III. complete tertiary and complete and incom-
plete university education.
The gamma association coefficient between educational level and those
trustful or cautious of science and technology is –0.018, while for the
relation between the level of understanding of scientific knowledge and
the same dependent variable its value is 0.584 (see Table 5). Conse-
quently, educational level does not affect the orientation of prevention
from or trust in science, but this does happen in the case of the level of
the agent’s scientific information.
Social attitudes and representations are built in environments of inter-
actions (Moscovici and Morková 1998). The construction of significa-tions of science and technology—and among them the valuation and
expectations—is built and prevails through systems of interaction in which
it is especially significant to see how scientific knowledge is created and
utilised. An environment of interaction in which this is relevant is univer-
sity. We have observed that among respondents with incomplete university
education, those who attend university show a predominance of cautious
towards science, while those who do not attend university are predom-
inantly trustful (Table 7).7
Table 7
Distribution of Trustful and Cautious Respondents with Incomplete
University Education, According to Whether They Attend University
Attend university
Orientation towards science Yes No Total
Trustful 37.5 60.6 47.1
Cautious 62.5 39.4 52.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Gamma = –0.439.
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 21/24
160 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
The environment of interaction—in this case, university—is a resource
to explain the association of the indicator ‘trustful–cautious’ with the
level of understanding of scientific knowledge. Indeed, going to universitynowadays is a stimulus to maintain the recall of scientific content. Litera-
ture has pointed out the effect of forgetting that content in adult life, which
is removed from educational institutions (Shamos 1995). Thus, within
the environment of interaction where scientific knowledge is created
and utilised, it is possible to see a relatively strong tendency to strengthen
precautionary attitudes towards science and technology; at the same time
in this environment it is observed that there is a higher level of understand-
ing of scientific content. Although the data are not enough to carry out a
more consistent test on these affirmations, we think it leaves the door
open for future explorations with significant empirical, theoretical and
political consequences.
Conclusions
In this study we have explored some indicators of the valuation of science
and technology by the public. This public consists of inhabitants of a
modern city that is located in a periphery country, both as regards inter-
national politics and economy, and the production of science and technol-
ogy. We have seen that the predominant perception confirms the advantages
of scientific knowledge, evaluating it in terms of utility and grounds of
modern culture, although it points out, at the same time, its limits and
negative effects, considering science a strange force, beneficial but incom-
prehensible and turbulent for the world. In this sense, we have observed
that the data reinforce the idea of trust in science as an expert system
characteristic of modernity, but they also reinforce the uncertainty gen-erated by controversies in science and in the application of technology.
This enables us to classify the surveyed population in terms of the concept
of risk society, which is a characteristic feature of reflexive modernity.
On the other hand we have pointed out the lack of correlation among
the valuation indicators, which seems to reflect an ambivalent culture
towards science and technology. Although we can only account for such
ambivalence as a mere disparity of judgement between positive and nega-
tive values towards science and technology, we have tried to formulate
some hypotheses about its origin. The data available do not enable us tofurther explore these hypotheses; nevertheless, they may be used as guide-
lines for future research. The ambivalence can be seen in the four types
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 22/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 161
of orientations towards science and technology which has been provided
to us by factor analysis. According to this, we have described two positive
and two negative orientations. The first ones are differentiated due to thehigher value of utility allocated to science or to a more unconditional
and naïve adherence to its good qualities. The negative ones comprise a
critical vision of science and technology that is based on the lack of sci-
ence’s commitment to society, and another vision based on the traditional
perspective and that which rejects science as a disturbing factor of trad-
itional life. These orientations coexist within the agent’s subjective space,
giving shape to its responses, without resulting in social groups or parties
among the public.
Last, we questioned the positive relation between education and the
valuation of science and technology. We observed that in the case of many
indicators, a higher level of education or knowledge does not imply a
more positive valuation of science, but that it is in fact the other way
round in the case of some indicators. We also did some empirical tests,
which, though weak, indicated that the valuations of science tend to be
more critical in contexts where the interaction in terms of knowledge is
high (universities). We suggest, then, that this should open a research line
with relevant and countless theoretical and political consequences.
NOTES
1. The survey was carried out in 2002 and covered a random sample of 300 cases. A
description of the study and its main comparative results with other cities of Ibero-
American countries can be found in Albornoz et al. (2003).
2. Before being applied, the questionnaire was subject to revision by a discussion group
of eleven people who analysed the meaning allocated to each prompt. There was an
immediate agreement about this question in particular.3. In spite of this, some authors have indicated Beck’s exaggeration in considering this
perception of the public particularly important in the relation between society and sci-
entific knowledge. See Yearley (2000).
4. Ambivalence is only given an operational meaning due to the lack of association be-
tween indicators of positive and negative valuation towards science and technology.
5. We do not include methodological errors as hypotheses in the design of indicators. The
fact that the ambiguity of responses has been made evident in other empirical studies
allows us to avoid the methodological hypothesis (see, for example, Eurobarómetro
55.2 2001).
6. Apart from the sixteen used in the previous section, two indicators were added: the
one we already used to differentiate the two basic orientations of trust and precaution,
and another presented in the following affirmation: ‘Scientific knowledge improves
people’s ability to decide important things in life’.
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 23/24
162 Leonardo Silvio Vaccarezza
7. The same analysis cannot be carried out at the other educational levels. In the case of
those who have a complete level, attendance of educational institutions is almost non-
existent. At other incomplete levels the number of cases (either among those who do
attend or among those that do not currently do so) is very low.
REFERENCES
Albornoz, Mario, Leonardo Vaccarezza, Carmelo Polino and María Eugenia Fazio (2003),
Resultados de la Encuesta de Percepción Pública de la Ciencia Realizada en Argentina,
Brasil, España y Uruguay. Buenos Aires: RICYT/CYTED—OEI. http://www.
centroredes.org.ar/documentos/files/Doc.Nro9.pdf.
Beck, Ulrich (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.——— (1999), World Risk Society. London: Polity Press-Blackwell.
Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette (2001), ‘A Genealogy of the Incresing Gap between Science
and the Public’, Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), pp. 99–113.
Collins, H.M. and R. Evans (2002). ‘The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expert-
ise and Experience’, Social Studies of Science, 32(2), pp. 235–96.
Dagnino, Renato and Hernán Thomas (1999), ‘La Política Científica y Tecnológica en
América Latina: Nuevos Escenarios y el Papel de la Comunidad de Investigación’,
Revista REDES, 6(13), pp. 49–74.
Davison, Aidan, Ian Barns and Renato Schibeci (1997), ‘Problematic Publics: A Critical
Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology’, Science, Technology and Human Value, 22(3), pp. 317–48.
Eurobarómetro 55.2 (2001), Europeans, Science and Technology. Brussels: EORG.
Fourez, Gérard (1997), ‘Scientific and Technological Literacy as a Social Practice’, Social
Studies of Science, 27(6), pp. 903–36.
Giddens, Antony (1990), The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Irwing, Alan (2001), ‘Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in Bio-
sciences’, Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), pp. 1–18.
Lee, Stuart and Wolf-Michael Roth (2003), ‘Science and the “Good Citizen”: Community-
based Scientific Literacy’, Science, Technology and Human Value, 28(3), pp. 403–24.
Luján, José L. and Oliver Todt (2000), ‘Perceptions, Attitudes and Ethical Valuations:The Ambivalence of the Public Image of Biotechnology in Spain’, Public Under-
standing of Science, 9(4), pp. 383–92.
Michael, Mike (2002), ‘Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and
the Public Understanding of Science’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(3),
pp. 357–78.
Miller, J.D., R. Pardo and F. Niwa (1998), Percepciones del Público Ante la Ciencia y la
Tecnología: Estudio Comparativo de la Unión Europea, Estados Unidos, Japón y
Canadá, Bilbao: Fundación Banco Bilbao Vizcaya.
Moscovici, Serge and Ivana Morková (1998), ‘Presenting Social Representation: A Con-
versation’, Culture & Psychology, 4(3) pp. 371–410.
Shamos, Morris H. (1995), The Myth of Scientific Literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
at Tubitak Ulakbim on October 7, 2011sts.sagepub.comDownloaded from
8/3/2019 The Public Perception of Science and Technology in a Periphery Society: A Critical Analysis from a Quantitative Pers…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-public-perception-of-science-and-technology-in-a-periphery-society-a-critical 24/24
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF S&T IN A PERIPHERY SOCIETY 163
Wynne, Brian (1995), ‘Public Understanding of Science’, in Sheila Jasanoff et al.,
eds, Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: Sage Publications,
pp. 361–88.
Yearley, Steven (2000), ‘Making Systematic Sense of Public Discontents with Expert
Knowledge: Two Analytical Approaches and a Case Study’, Public Understanding
of Science, 9(2), pp. 105–22.
Ziman, John (2000), Real Science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
——— (2003), ‘Ciencia y Sociedad Civil’, Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología
y Sociedad , 1(1), pp. 177–88.